Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds real value: it uses only the connected Gover account and its API permissions, it does not execute the action, and it forbids credential arguments. The 'prepares without executing' clause sits in some tension with destructiveHint=true, but it reads as clarifying the two-phase prepare/confirm design rather than contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action and the prepare-only constraint are front-loaded, followed by operational rules. Most sentences earn their place, though there is mild boilerplate stacking toward the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, open-world mutation tool it covers the confirm workflow, auth scope, and result handling (resultadoId -> gover_ler_resultado), but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema it leaves parameter meaning entirely unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them, dismissing them with 'Os campos seguem o contrato da API'. This leaves itens, solicitacaoId, nivel, justificativa, and the boolean flag undocumented in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Reprovar os itens selecionados da solicitacao') and adds the key qualifier that it only prepares the action without executing it. It is clearly distinguishable from the approve/cancel siblings by scope, though it does not explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit workflow: show the parameters to the user, and only after explicit confirmation call gover_confirmar_operacao. It also states a hard exclusion ('Nunca informe credenciais ou identidade de autenticacao como argumentos') and routes long results to gover_ler_resultado.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.